Adams Capital Management: March 2002

Abstract

In March 2002, the five partners of Adams Capital Management (ACM), a venture capital firm investing in information technology telecommunications with $700 million under management, gathered to discuss whether they should change their strategy in view of the prolonged downturn in both the economy and their targeted investment sectors. Since its founding in 1993, ACM had followed a distinct strategy of targeting particular markets of interest, investing within these, and managing the portfolio companies through a defined process to liquidity. ACM's first fund had performed extremely well; its second was looking good; and the third, albeit only a year into its life, was not performing as well. ACM is considering three options: investing in companies producing more fundamental products, hiring more associates or investing in more markets, or taking bigger positions in companies in its traditional sectors. Each has its own possibilities and drawbacks. A rewritten version of an earlier case.

The partners of Adams Capital Management must decide whether to start their fourth fund in early 2006 or to hold off until they have realized more exits from the earlier funds and have proved the viability of a recent change in strategy.

Our analysis seeks to understand the impact of changing allocations of property rights on investment in new firms. We focus on the Cartoon Network, et al. v. Cablevision decision in the U.S., which narrowed the protection enjoyed by content creators (e.g., movie studios) and gave greater rights to downstream technology firms, as well as decisions in France and Germany that took an opposite view. Our findings regarding relative venture capital investment in the U.S. and Europe, across Europe, and between the various judicial circuits of the U.S. suggest that decisions around the allocation of property rights can have economically and statistically significant impacts on investment in innovative enterprises.

David Swensen and the Investments Office staff must decide whether to continue to allocate the bulk of the university's endowment to illiquid investments—hedge funds, private equity, real estate—given the impact of the recent market turmoil. The case explores the risks and benefits of a different asset allocation strategy and also considers how to classify some of the different assets. It highlights the issues around allocations across different subclasses, e.g., between venture capital, hedge funds, and real assets.